FA will be allowed a recorded video interview

[Pond31]

It appears that they are considering a change on the law which will allow a FA to make a pre-recorded statement rather than having to attend court. This is a breach of the basic principle of being allowed to "face your accuser". It also makes out that the FA is telling the truth as she must be if they allow her to record a statement. This is an attack on justice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39319495

[Franticwithworry]

It absolutely is? How can you cross-examine a recording? Its ridiculous.

[Rights Fighter]

The more convictions the better, is their way of thinking. Just look at all that free workforce within the prisons......

[Franticwithworry]

This has been explained to me more clearly. The accuser can be cross examined, just not in the courtroom, and there are reasons why this does actually benefit the defence in some ways.

I have to say that I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing after all.

[Mr B]

I feel that shrink wrapped testimony works against real justice. It is a clear attempt at pushing up conviction rates rather than progressing justice.
Mr B

[wakingnightmare]

I've real problems with this chiefly the assumption that the accuser is the victim. They are to be protected from the ordeal of giving evidence in open court. What does that signal to the jury even subconsciously, that they shouldn't have to face their attacker.

The assumption that both a crime has taken place and the the person in the dock has carried it out is wrong.

We all know these cases often come down to one persons story v another rather than actual evidence.

What happens if the jury want to ask a question.

If the "victim" isn't challenged in the same way conviction rates will undoubtedly rise, which will be seen as a good thing as a conviction is all that matters. I'm tired of reading articles bemoaning the low conviction rate for these types of offences... it never occurs to the writers that a. the person accused was innocent or b. the crime didn't actually happen rather a dirty pervert has got away with it.

The widespread belief that a charge means a sex crime took place is wrong.

This new initiative kills what remains of the presumption of innocence.

[experience3]

Bad in itself but also look at the big picture

This is incredibly bad, in and of itself it is a travesty of law in my view, but at the same time it is the medium end of the wedge.

First they come to the ludicrous conclusion that nobody ever lies about this.
Then they tell the police to believe only the victim.
Then the police decide to not investigate int he round but just gather evidence against the accused
Then they loosen the criteria to take it to court
Then they get frustrated there aren't more convictions so they start making it easier to get one
Now that hasn't worked so they are trying to make it even easier to get a conviction.

At this rate it won't be long before the accusers words are good enough on their own and juries and courts are dispensed with altogether.

Taking my case as an example (now on bail for 6 months, obviously) in the event that I am charged and see my day in court, I would be EXTREMELY KEEN for my barrister to cross examine the FA in regards to her sexual history as I am all but certain she is a virgin. Call me old fashioned but I fail to see how that could possibly not be relevant to a jury since I am accused of raping her.

[Rights Fighter]

ABE interviews are recorded anyway and played to the jury and have been for a few years so this is not really anything new. I think they would be cross-examined on discrepancies - just not in the courtroom itself.

Obviously there is nothing in the media about factually innocent defendants......